Re: [lojban] Re: Fw: bridi tail negation

[Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>]

I would guess that the reason for the {se ... fa} bit was partly to emphasize the experience and partly to keep from having to figure out how to terminate {lonu zutse ne'i le ricyzda gi'enai tavla}

2010/3/5 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:16 AM, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
> I once stated that the emphasis of the arguments changes when SE is used,
> but was told that SE does not cause such change in emphasis. It would be
> handy if it did.

I think bringing an argument to the front does make it more topical.
But in this case, it was not really brought to the front, or it was
brought to the front only to be pushed back again with "fa":

  zanfri ko'a  ->  se zanfri fa ko'a

So the difference in this case is not really about ko'a, but about
where the elided zo'e is:

  (zo'e) zanfri ko'a  -> se zanfri fa ko'a (zo'e)

In the second form the experiencer is perhaps even more irrelevant
than in the first form.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

-- 
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu